[sp332]

Asking as one of these apparently tone-deaf guys, can someone be specific about what's bad here? Was Techweek for throwing the party, or the women dressing that way, or deciding to pose that way for photos, or Techweek putting the photos on Facebook, or choosing the photos for the invite?

[jonnathanson]

The chosen image creates the impression that women at parties are the "entertainment," and/or are sex objects. It also sends a belittling and hostile message to any women who may be planning to attend. And in general, it's in pretty poor taste for an industry event. It feels like the kind of flier I'd expect to have shoved into my hands while walking down the strip in Las Vegas on New Year's Eve.

As men, we are so frequently accustomed to seeing images like this that we don't really see what's so bad about them. That's more of the point of the blog post, at least as I read it. It's a good point. This sort of thing won't strike most male readers as all that big a deal, and that's part of the issue.

[sp332]

Huh... that's actually the opposite impression I got from the photo. While there is always an element of "performing" in a photo booth, I don't see any obvious male influence. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a woman getting this invite, these photos would be encouraging. It's evidence that A) women actually show up and B) that women can relax and have fun at these events. That's why I was so surprised at the reaction.

[outside1234]

How does it do that? Serious question! The people in the picture are having fun at a party at one of those photo shoot stations that is at every black tie party.

[jonnathanson]

Those strike me as models, not party attendees, presumably paid to pose for that photo, or to be at some event in which the photo was taken. They are not dressed in black tie attire; they are dressed in a sexy, posed, clearly pre-coordinated "booth babe" take on black tie. I could be wrong, but that's the impression the photo gives me.

[sp332]

Techweek specifically said they were attendees posing in a photo booth. You might question that, but would it make a difference?

[kristofferR]

So is the issue that there's no guys in the picture or that the women are too beautiful?

[domdip]

Neither. You can add a leering guy to the picture and it will still be offensive. There are probably pictures with beautiful women that would not be offensive.

The 'issue' has been described several times in the comments and in the original article. Trying to reduce it to one feature isn't helpful.

[kristofferR]

The original article says nothing at all about what the problem is and the comments here says a lot of different things, most doesn't make any sense at all (complaining about sexualizing a rave...).

[ronaldx]

I don't see what good will come of this, but I will try genuinely to help you nonetheless.

Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts undone to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately equivalent?

If not, you might like to consider why that choice of image would be uncomfortable for you and that this particular choice of image might be uncomfortable for others.

If you bite the bullet (well done!), there are further problems. This is an event to launch a high school seniors employment initiative. High school and sexualised imagery don't belong together.

[jack-r-abbit]

Maybe with their shirts undone to their waist

First off, those women don't have any thing undone. In fact, their shirts go all the way to the neck. No cleavage. One pic has one of the women showing a little (tiny, tiny) midriff but the image cropping really minimizes the amount of skin shown. They are dressed in a "fun take on the black tie affair" kind of way... not half nekkid. So your comparison on the men with shirts undone to their waist is quite a bit extreme.

sharing a kiss

Second, call it a crazy double standard or what have you but the fact is, many girl friends do stuff like this while not many guys do. When my wife is hanging out with her girl friends it is not uncommon for one of them to lick another at some point in the evening. I can honestly say that I don't recall ever being involved in a licking with another guy. I also don't accompany my guy friends to the restroom but that seems to be popular with the women. Men and women are different after all.

[kristofferR]

> Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts undone to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately equivalent?

That actually touched on a very different issue, especially the "sharing a kiss"-part. While nobody seeing the pictures of the two girls is thinking of them as lesbians, a lot of people would consider two guys doing the exact same poses "gay". Just goes to show that gender inequality cuts both ways :(

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that all though. I REALLY disagree that we should hide images like that because a lot of people (even people who support gay marriage) are uncomfortable with things that "are gay".

> High school and sexualised imagery don't belong together.

WHAAT? They're 17/18 for gods sake! There's hardly a time where it is more appropriate.

[ronaldx]

1. The fact that you/others expect women to behave in a sexually titillating way for men is not 'cuts both ways' discrimination, except that it degrades everyone.

2. High school students deserve to be respected.

Your comment disgusts me.

[kristofferR]

1. Huh?! Where have I said anything of that sort, or something even close to it? Are you sure you even read my comment?

2. Yeah, they do. Forcefully repressing their sexuality is not respectful. At all.

I think it's pretty stunning that you find my comment, in which I highlighted a gender inequality issue and being honest with youth about their sexuality, disgusting.

[sp332]

Interesting point about the target age group. Where did you find that?

[ronaldx]

No answer to my question but you ask your own? IMO you're wilfully avoiding the point about the appropriateness of sexualised imagery in general, but nonetheless I'll answer your question: from the original source.

http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-contr...

"Gather with us as we celebrate the launch of our charity initiative with Urban Alliance, the only year long employment program for under resourced high school seniors in Chicago." Excuse any transcription error.

[sp332]

Ah, thanks.

Your question seems incredibly irrelevant. Yes, putting partying people on a party invite seems like the most natural thing to do. The women are clothed, so I'm not sure why you think a shirtless guy is equivalent. But more to the point, I think putting sexy guys having fun on a party invite would make exactly as much sense as this one. But it would have the disadvantage of not showing women that they can show up and have a good time too.

[ronaldx]

> I think putting sexy guys having fun on a party invite would make exactly as much sense as this one.

Of everything that you've said on this topic, I agree only with this sentence; neither makes any sense.

P.S. They've unbuttoned their shirts so you can see their muscular pecs. (Note carefully: in my example, they were never shirtless.)

[startupstella]

The problem is that the women are overtly sexualized. Which is fine if the ad is for a strip club. But it's not...it's for a tech event. Context is key here. We've been desensitized by accepting these images of women as normal...they're not. And especially not for a tech event.

[sp332]

Actually, it's an invitation to a party at a nightclub. And again, these women dressed themselves and went to a similar party in Miami.

To be clear, telling women that they are "not normal" is actually discouraging them from attending, not to mention being really judgemental.

[startupstella]

The very first line of this is "TechWeek Presents"...it's a party associated with TechWeek.

[trhway]

>it's for a tech event. Context is key here.

Black Tie Rave AfterParty at a nightclub - how that can be a tech event? For anybody who may mistakenly think so (or wanting to turn it into), the image does perfect job of clearing that misunderstanding.

[dubfan]

Ok, but is the solution for all men to self-flagellate and feel guilty about their sexualities? It seems like his reaction is an extreme non-sequitur that will only lead to unhappiness.

[startupstella]

Not at all. Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event. It's not about sex, it's about tech. And making everything sexualized to attract attendees is the problem.

[trhway]

>Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event.

why? who decided it? and how it can realistically be done - forced ingestion of chemical castration pills by all the attendees? Wherever you have people, you'll have sexuality. May be oppressed, yet it still will be there. Only mister Data could turn his emotions chip off, and even he liked to have it on.

When people do such blanket statements without firm grounding in reason and facts, usually it is a statement of power, ie. in this context it would mean "Sexuality [of people/group i designate as such] is irrelevant ..."

[glenda]

It's mainly just about the way Techweek chose to present themselves. They had the opportunity to pick anything and that's the one they ended up with - to me that is definitely poor judgement regardless of whether you're offended by the image or not.

[stcredzero]

So you're saying that this is mainly a political maneuver to further punish Techweek because they aren't bowing deeply enough? (Even though it's couched in the language of a moral crusade for sexual equality.)